The High Court has refused Dr Thomas Foy’s application for an interlocutory injunction to stop the University of Limerick investigating an allegation about pension service credits granted to a former employee, referred to in the judgment as Mr X.
The University alleges that Mr Foy, while its Director of Human Resources, procured the transfer of pensionable service from Mr X’s previous employer, although Mr X had received a refund for those years. The University said the alleged transfer improperly increased Mr X’s pension and lump sum, causing a loss of almost €200,000. These remain allegations: the proposed investigation had not commenced when the court delivered judgment.
Mr Foy argued that a settlement reached with the University in July 2018 resolved the relevant matters and barred a later investigation. The University disputed that interpretation. The court considered the settlement letter and correspondence exchanged before it was signed, after both sides waived privilege over that correspondence.
The judge noted that Mr Foy’s solicitor had sought a clear commitment that the University would not investigate historic issues, and that the University had rejected such a commitment shortly before the settlement. The three-paragraph settlement letter contained no express ban on investigations and no full-and-final-settlement clause. The court found Mr Foy had not shown a strong case that the letter barred the proposed investigation, or even a fair issue to be tried on that question.
The court also considered whether the University knew about the specific pension-service transfer when the settlement was signed. It distinguished that issue from concerns about professional added years in Mr X’s pension. The evidence did not establish a fair issue that the University knew of the transfer at the time.
The judgment addressed an incorrect sworn statement by Mr Foy about a draft settlement document. He accepted that his account was wrong. The judge said the false statement cast doubt on the reliability of his recollection of the negotiations, while stating that the court was not suggesting he had deliberately misled it.
The judge said the public interest in investigating the alleged misuse of funds at a taxpayer-funded university weighed against stopping the inquiry, as did the reluctance to intervene in an incomplete employment process. The ruling concerns only the interim injunction application; it does not determine whether the alleged misconduct occurred. The court asked the parties to try to agree outstanding matters, with a possible mention hearing one week after judgment if needed.